The JFK Photo That Could Have Changed History (hoax)

From what I have studied, particularly "Thanks for the Memories" by Brice Taylor, that is how "they" gain control over our politicians and world
leaders.

First "They" (the group that has the real power) zero in on your weakness. We all have weaknessess.

Then they "feed" that weakness and (film/photograph) you subcoming to that weakness.

Then the blackmail card - "You do exactly as we tell you, or everyone will know via our publishing said photo/film".

Just another bullying tactic, but it's one that has been used to rule the world for a long time.

Go to my previous post and to the link. There are pictures of Jane Mansfield (who had a fatal car "accident"), Sammy Davis Jr. (Who Brice Taylor
aka Susan Ford talks about in her book) with Anton LaVay, the head of "The Church of Satan". fyi: Sammy Davis, Jane Mansfield, Marlyn Monroe all
were involved in The Church of Satan and friends of JFK.

"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" Old Russian Proverb

(fyi: I'm not even "Christian" and the warning bells are going off on this one).

As much as I want to like the idea of "Camelot" and the Kennedy's they were, just like most men/women of real money and power, ruthless and service
to self people.

So we find out that JFK had a collar and leash attached to and lead by the real powers that be.

One last thought, I read David Icke's "The Biggest Secret" and Brice Taylor (aka: Susan Ford) "Thanks For The Memories" years ago and still have
these books on a back shelf in my library. Chalked them up to mostly vivid imaginations - now I'm not so sure.

Where there is smoke there is fire. - American Proverb

People have called both Ms. Taylor and Mr. Icke crazy - years later much of what they are saying has come to light as true........yet people forget
who tried to initially warn them.

Again the ties between various Illuminati families is very involved, and a long unraveling process, similar to untying a set of bad knots confronts
the researcher. The Kennedy family abounds with marriages to names such as Anketells, Baileys, Booths, Buckleys, Collins, Hatfields, Humphreys,
Freemans, James, Phelps, Reagans, Russells, and Smiths.3 The Kennedys that we will look closest at are related to the Fitzpatricks, a powerful Irish
family whose coat of arms has 3 fleur-de-lis with a dragon and a lion. (The Fitzpatricks may tie back to France, and they may possibly part of the
Sang Royal (Sangraal--Sang Raal is the term used in the older manuscripts which can mean both Royal bloodline or Holy Grail.) Jackie Bouvier Kennedy
Onassis who married John F. Kennedy was tied to the Auchinclosses via her sister’s marriage into the Auchincloss family.

The Auchinclosses are Scottish bloodline of the Illuminati. "One can fairly hear the woof and tweet of history whistle through the names of the
ramified Auchincloss tribe: Bunt, Grosvenor, Rockefeller, Saltonstall, Tiffany, Vanderbilt and Winthrop among others."5 For instance, Hugh D.
Auchincloss, Sr. married Emma Brewster Jennings, daughter of Oliver B. Jennings, who co-founded Standard Oil with John D. Rockefeller. As for the
numerous Kennedy intermarriages with notable names, for instance, Bernet Shafer Kennedy (1798-1878) married Phebe Freeman in 1820.6 But then the
question arises--were either of these people secretly part of the occult? Andrew Kennedy married Margaret (Penny) Hatfield (1824-1989). The Andrew
Kennedy family is allied with the Hatfield, Bailey, Collins, and Mullins families.8 Again a person is confronted with a great deal of clues, but
precious little time and resources to try following up the numerous leads.

First of all, Kennedy's philandering ways were not "well known" among the public in the 1950's, as some here have claimed. Although the press,
fellow politicians and people of influence may have known, the public at large was kept in the dark. It wasn't until after his assassination and the
years following it that Kennedy's true playboy ways became common knowledge.

Secondly, it boggles my mind that so many of you don't understand how this picture becoming public would have changed history! Kennedy defeated
Nixon in the 1960 election by the slimmest of margins. There is little doubt that a picture clearly showing Kennedy in the presence of naked women,
while his wife was left behind to give birth to their stillborn child, would have angered/upset enough decent, church-going Americans to sway their
votes. This wasn't 2009, folks. Things were A LOT different back then. Today we expect our politicians and celebrities to act this way, but not
back then. Back then we actually looked up to our President, or potential President, and the Kennedy's themselves were considered royalty. This
would have seriously damaged that perception. It wasn't until Watergate that the American people and the press started to be more harsh in their
treatment and their assessment of politicians.

So, had this picture been released- and this is a hypothetical situation because I don't think the press would have released this photo had they
gotten their hands on it anyway- things were different back then, and the press kept such things to themselves. Anyway, had this picture been
released, Nixon would have almost certainly been elected. Now, those in this thread who agree with me up to this point have alleged that Nixon would
have mishandled the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the world would be a lot different now- if it even still existed (possible nuclear holocaust). But I
disagree. If Nixon had been elected, the Soviets would have never tried testing him and putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. They only did this to
Kennedy because he was young, unproven and potentially weak. The Russians had already had extensive dealings with Nixon as a Senator and a Vice
President, and they knew he was tough and they knew what to expect from him.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Union's "testing" of Kennedy, is very similar to what we are experiencing today with President Obama. He
is young, inexperienced, and potentially weak. The Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and a host of others are doing their best to test him and see
what they can get away with. This is something that VP Biden predicted would happen during the campaign, and it has come true.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So no one remembers Gary Hart? His run for the presidency was torpedoed over
less.

JFK was the Golden Boy, family man, war hero. The big knock on him at the time was his Catholicism and that he would turn the entire country over to
the Vatican if he won.

Kennedy's biggest attributes at the time were his clean reputation and that he wasn't Nixon. And it was a very, very close (some say rigged ~see
Chicago, Texas & Richard Daley~) election. I think a picture like that coming out could've very likely turned the election. We'll never know.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

"JFK did have a short but very well lived life and I'm so happy for him"

Are you freaking kidding me? The SOB was on a yacht full of naked women while his wife delivered a stillborn infant via emergency c-section and that
is a well lived life?

Oh, and I would be one of those who would never vote for Hillary because of her putting up with Bill's philandering. If she has such little respect
for herself, you can hardly expect her to have any respect for others.

If I held on to a scandalous photo of a man, that I thought might be JFK, laying by himself on a boat with naked woman who are not even within his
sight, let alone anywhere near him, when I finally decided to go public it would be TMZ.

the photo is from 1956. So yes if it was released in that year[the stiff 50's] i would say he wouldn't be president in the 60's[Maybe later].SO
then Nixon would have been it? or another year eisenhower, i wonder how the cuba missile crisis would have gone....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.